Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
B-65 Type Battlecruiser Design by Tzoli B-65 Type Battlecruiser Design by Tzoli
The B-65 type Battlecruiser, Large Cruiser or Super Type A cruiser (Note in IJN the Type A designation used for the Heavy Cruisers, B for the Light Cruisers and C for the Squadron Leader Cruisers) was designed to lead and defend the Japanese cruiser squadrons in Night Battle engagements from the USN fleet especially the Alaska class Battlecruisers / Large Cruisers which had been ordered in mid-late 1940 itself designed to counter the German Deutschalnd class Big Gun Cruisers and the never existing Japanese equivalents the Chichibu class Japan was reportedly building (Never such design or name existed in IJN building programmes)
Originally 6 ships was ordered: 2 in the Maru 5 and the rest in the Maru 6 programme with a completion of the first units expected in 1945 and 46 with the received hull names of 795 and 796 respectively.
Later as more information was available on the Alasakas and the experience of the first year of the war some modifications were done to the design, increasing it's main calibre to 36cm (356mm)/45 cannons, the same ones used on the Kongo, Fuso and Ise classes, as well as increment of the main deck armour from 125 to 155-158mm to withstand 1.000kg bombs instead of 800kg ones.


Based on the information available in books and on the internet as well as existing drawings I've made my version by my imagination of the IJN's B-65 type battlecruiser. The changes as follows compared to the drawings widespread on the net:
- Reduced Yamato like bridge and aft superstructure instead of the Nelson like tower like bridges
- More light AA guns as by the time these ships finished (1945, 46) they would carry large amounts of light AA
- Superfiring 2nd and 3rd pair of 10cm twin turrets, while an all same deck layout reduces topweight the superfiring position allows better ahead and astern fire for the middle turrets
- 2 Catapults and 1 Crane instead of 1 Catapult and 2 Cranes, as among the modern cruisers only the Oyodo and Agano class light cruisers featured single catapults, and in case of Oyodo that was a very long one though the preliminaries showed two smaller ones so for such a large ship 2 catapults is a must and also more Japanese looking. Both of these catapults are on the main deck.
- No Torpedo launchers. While many texts says they would carry torpedo tubes no drawings show them installed and the later iteration of the design (the 3x2 36cm armed one) does not mentions it either and as I consider them as capital ships a single quad launcher per side is a waste in my opinion on this design. (Eric Lacroix's Japan Cruisers of the Pacific War too does not mention torpedo tubes)

In the end the design had the following characteristics:
Dimensions: 240 (wl) 244,6 (oa) x 27,5 x 8,84m
Displacement: 32.000tons (standard)
Armour: 125mm Deck, 190mm Belt
Engines: 170.000shp 4 shafts
Speed: 63km/h (33knots)
Range: 14.800km at 33km/h (8.000nm at 18knots)
Radars: 1x2 Type 21, 2x Type 22, 1x Type 13, 1x Type 14
Armaments: 
3x3 31cm/50 Type 0 / Type 100 Cannons
8x2 10cm/65 Type 98 DP-AA Guns
26x3 25mm/60 Type 96 AA MGs
2x2 13mm/76 Type 93 AA MGs
4x28 12cm Type 5 AA Rocket launchers
3x Seaplanes (I've choosen 2x F1M Petes and 1x E16A Paul)

The proposed  modified upgunned version had these changes:
Armour: 156mm Deck, 190mm Belt
Armaments: 
3x2 36cm/45 (356mm) Type 43 / 43rd Year Type Cannons
8x2 10cm/65 Type 98 DP-AA Guns
12x2 40mm/60 Type 5 AA MGs
10x3 25mm/60 Type 96 AA MGs
2x2 13mm/76 Type 93 AA MGs
8x28 12cm Type 5 AA Rocket launchers
Dark paint scheme similar to the one applied on IJN Musashi.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconthekidthatyoudontkow:
thekidthatyoudontkow Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Student Traditional Artist
still not as good as the H-44 CLASS
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
...
You know nothing about the B-65 then....
Reply
:iconthekidthatyoudontkow:
thekidthatyoudontkow Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Student Traditional Artist
yep i only khow thing about famous battle ship
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
H-44 was never built
Reply
:iconthekidthatyoudontkow:
thekidthatyoudontkow Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Student Traditional Artist
i did not say that i was the biggest ship ever BUILD . but after all it was the biggest battle ship ever blueprint 
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nope...
There was Kaneda's Design from around 1923, half million tons and 609m long of the IJN
Reply
:iconthekidthatyoudontkow:
thekidthatyoudontkow Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Student Traditional Artist
the first idea for the h 44 was to fit the 800mm on a battle ship 
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner 3 days ago  Hobbyist Digital Artist
No! that is the hypothetical - anecdotal H-45 which was Hitler drawn up in 1945 apparently
H 44 featured 508mm cannons!
navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_21-…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-class_…

www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarin…
Reply
:icon454superduty:
454SuperDuty Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2018
I've been looking at and playing with this B65 for a couple of months now.  I'm going to make lots of changes to it make it more potent.  Some of the changes include: using US 40 mm quads x10, US 14/45 Mark 12 inch guns mounted triple US Alaska 12/50 turrets at 956 tons per turret for 3 rounds per minute with penetration power of 8" of belt armor at 34,000 and 8" of deck armor at 36,000, 12 × 20 mm /70 Oerlikon machine guns (mounted on main and aft towers).
For the 100 mm/65 I want to add one more forward center and one more aft center which would give a full broadside of twelve 100 mm/65 guns.
Torpedoes: at max range they drift up to 1,000 yards or so left or right.  In many cases the Type 93 torpedo detonated in the wake of their prey(?!$#%@?), and in most cases ended up self destructing and finishing off their own ship(s).  I haven't added them yet and don't really plan on adding them as I don't see much of a benefit here.
This B65 built and in action would be out numbered by at least 10 invincible super US warships armed with weapons of mass destruction and invincible armor and the other usual bullshit.  So for this B65 to obtain victory against such a superior/invincible force it would require an enormous amount of SPEED.  
If I can drop the draft down to say 27'-28' without loosing armor in the critical places and use a special prop design I think she would pull 38 knots.  The funnel will be removed and vented at the rear below the quarter deck (better firing arcs, more stable, better AA visibility).  Funnel pipes will run along and just outside of main barbettes above boilers, under main deck plate.
Catapults: one doesn't makes sense and offsets the weight/balance.  I was planing on using two catapults but want to mount them on the rear like Yamato/Iowa etc.  The planes are rather tall and wide so I am currently working on a special lift and a hanger behind turret 3 for 2-3 planes (wings removed).  Not sure if it will fit but the ship needs planes for long firing ranges and scouting for subs/uboats.  If the hanger doesn't fit then the catapults and planes will have to be moved back to the center location as most drawings show.
Currently working on torpedo protection for Super Yamato, Super B65, Super Ibuki ships.  For the in torpedo belt I'm thinking about using seperate layers (stacked against each other) of NVNC.  Haven't decided on thicknesses yet, for Super Yamato maybe 25 mm per sheet, Super B65 maybe 13 mm per sheet and Super Ibuki maybe 9 mm.  I have to figure out the weight, I want to save weight but not skimp on protection.  I did work on a Super Akizuki but I'll have to start over on that one, 6 attempts decided to sit on that for a bit, I think I'm at 6 attempts on the Super Yamato also. I've decided on a 16.1" belt for the Super Yamato as it is enough to stop the USN 16"/50 Mark 7.  I know the USN 16"/50 Mark 7 can punch clean through Shinano's 26" armor plate at 42,000 yards at a 85* angle and the shell flies another 5,000 yards and lands in a river, like WOW that kind of fire power is truly unstoppable but I'll take my chances!

You have lots of great drawings, awesome work! 
You drew up some Super Duper Yamato, what is the weight of that thing?  And does it have a purpose?
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Apr 14, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Erm... Sure??

No Iowas and Montanas cannons could not penetrte through the Yamatos turret face armour! No such ranges!
That test with 65cm face plate was done at vertical position and from a 100m's from the gun aka even at point blank range if Iowa and Yamato dovked next to each other and Iowa targeting Yamato's turret she could still not penetrate it as Yamato's Turret face was angled to around 45 degrees giving another 40% or 25cm armour thickness totalling at 90cm!
There are no naval gun in existence that could penetrate that much armour thickness!
Even her Belt armour made Yamato impervious to shell penetration as 41cm thickness with an added 20° incline plus at long range added angle of fall of enemy shells meant penetration was not possible.

Read this carefully:
www.navweaps.com/index_tech/te…
Reply
:icon454superduty:
454SuperDuty Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2018
B 65:
The Japanese 12/50 gun uses an 850 lbs shell, armor penetration and range is not great.  The US Alaska's US 12/50 gun is almost equal to all 14"/45 guns in range and penetration with their 1,140 lbs shell. The Alaska's turrets offer 3 rpm per gun.

The US 14/45 Mark 12 has a greater muzzle velocity and heavier shell than the Japanese 14/45 gun and is 20 tons lighter, that's why I picked those guns.

When experts looked at the damage from the 14"/45 shell that hit the South Dakota which was fired from the Japanese Kongo (Kirishima), the damage appears (to me) to be at least 3x's more than it should have been.  So that means it was a one off Japanese Super Shell or the Japanese guns and ammo are in fact way superior over the US guns and ammo.  

US armor Rocket Engineers concluded that the US Class A armor is at least 20% stronger than Japanese VH armor on paper based on metal properties/testing, but in the real World and in Real Life the Japanese inferior VH armor with a thickness of 7.21" is much stronger than 7.21" of the Superior US Class A armor. 

Japanese deck armor was so inferior (not much better than plywood) that the Japanese bought and imported a 25 square meter of deck armor from Germany to test the affect of their bombs.  Well the Mogami's could take hits from five - 550 lbs. US bombs and continue to fight so this would be another fairy tale.

The US Super Carriers of today actually use a larger exact version of Yamato's hull.  If the US is so superior why don't they design and use their own hulls for their Super Carriers.  It's seems to me they just  like to prove they are rather inferior to the Japanese.

The US 40 mm quad bofors are the best AA weapon of WWII.  But that is only against the Japanese high speed paper airplanes.  The US and Germany had high speed armored aircraft by mid 42'.  The US 40 mm quads would not even scratch the paint on armored aircraft.

The best AA weapon of WWII was the Japanese 100 mm/65 Type 98 gun.  A new version for today would make this gun superior again against new threats, with a heavy hit, great range and high rate of fire.

Most Japanese warships were top heavy, what many do not know is that many US warships were also dangerously top heavy.

Yamato was designed to fight on the idea of being out numbered by 3:1.  Her armor was built for point blank fighting, which would be the case when outnumbered.  Iowa was supposedly designed to withstand a 2,110 lbs. 16"/45 shell fired from the 16" guns used on the Colorado class at 22,000 to 30,000 yards.  The South Dakota/Kirishima engagement tells us that Iowa/South Dakota's 17.2" Class A armor barbettes can't even withstand the Japanese 14'/45 shell at 15,000 yards.  A direct hit would bend a crack open the US barbette and jam the gun turret taking the gun out of action. Iowa was actually designed to operate with 200 support vessels and 400 support aircraft, only engaging at safe distances.

I think Yamato had 12 boilers not because they were old and inferior but for redundancy.  From the real pictures of Yamato one can see that Yamato was still moving when she blew up.

Japanese 25 mm /60 guns, a single mount can shoot down one aircraft at 900 yard with 10 shots, a triple can shoot down one aircraft at 700 yards with 200 rounds.  There for single mount 25 mm/60 Type 96 guns are 1000x's more effective than triple mounts.  The triples require more ammo, more men, this does not make sense.  The Japanese should have "went to town" with single mounts not triple mounts....

Your B-65 revised design 1942 has 12 twin 40 mm guns mounted on the deck.  The Japanese played with only single mount air cooled versions.  Apparently the Japanese could not make the gun work because they didn't know how to build guns.  That's why they built and sold guns to other countries....  Anyways, where did your twin 40 mm come from? 
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Apr 29, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
You have soo many errors I don't know where to start!

I think you mix the older first iteration of the well known 40mm pom-pom of the British the 40mm QF Mark VIII which the Vickers company sold to the Japanese in the 20's and the IJN named them 40mm Type HI.
The 40mm Type 5 was the Japanese copy of the British 40mm Bofors guns captured in Singapore 1942:
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_…
But due to material shortages and constant bombing they could not produce enough number of this guns and only some escort ships were equipped with it. The twin mountings was intended to replace the older triple 25mm guns which while a good gun, the feedign mechanism was limited the usage of the gun!
The 25mm single mount while might be better, but it was heavy and exhausted the single person operating it!
www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP…


Also the 40mm Bofors gun isn't an American gun at all! It's a Swedish weapon still in usage today!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uddx-5…

You really think? REALLY THINK a 40mm round could not stop and aircraft? a few hits and any plane could be shot down!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAxdge…

No ship was designed the fight point blank range except pre-dreadnought battleships where even the largest guns had a maximum range of 10km!
Yamato was designed for long range fire hence the tall superstructure and large number of spotting aircraft.
Reply
:iconjabakerwa:
jabakerwa Featured By Owner Apr 6, 2018
That is one nice  look ship. Wonder what tier would in world of warships?
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Discuss that in Word of Warships forums
Reply
:iconsenkanyamato:
SenkanYamato Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2018
Pretty cool design here.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Mar 12, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
thx
Reply
:iconaffeks:
Affeks Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018
Oh yeah I just noticed, the double catapult thing is either completely unnecessary or misplaced. You go through the process of considering the firing arcs fore and aft for the 10cm/65 secondaries, but then place a catapult on each side aft of the 10cm guns reducing the aft firing arcs from over 90 degrees to at least only 70 degrees. Im being direct on this one, but I dont know whats going on with those. You should at least try placing the catapults closer to center or just go with the single catapult all together if you cant make it work. 

I dont know what other modern designes you considered for the double capapult thing, but Agano and Ooyodo are pretty much the only finished "modern" ww2 surface combat vessels of cruiser size or larger. So if anything that should be an argument for the single catapult.

There is also the fact that b65 is designed to have very wide fields of fire for the main guns, and with those catapults im sure the effective firing arcs for thoes 310mm guns has to be unnecessarily reduced. Remember the blast effects from those 12,2" guns are something different from 203mms on previous heavy cruisers.

Again, either get those catapults closer to the center or ditch the double catapult idea all together. 

Just forget what I said about the torpedoes for now. THIS. IS. WAY. MORE. IMPORTANT.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Mar 9, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see you have some knowledge on warship designs but you made a few mistakes and errors:

1. Superstructure: As I've stated in the text I dislike the simple Nelson like tower superstructure for this design hence I've used the Yamato's but with reduced number of decks and other small changes as this design often described as a small scale Yamato. The hull lines are follows the known drawings and in it's very similar to the cruiser hull lines of the IJN it has nothing to do with increasing the firing angles. Low angle fire was quite rare in WW2 so does end fire (all forward or all aft).

2. Sloped Armour: What you said is actually the other way around! Sloped armour protects the ship much better at long distances than at short because as the range increases so does the angle of fall of the shell. Example if fired directly horizontal the angle of the armour is 20° but if fired from long range and say the angle of fall of the shell is 35° than the armour's relative angle increases to 55° !

3. Torpedoes: Like I've written it's only a waste of space and tonnage and a hazard to the ship as well and a single quad torpedo launcher per side while intimidating isn't that effective. With her 31 or 35,6cm cannons it will surely fight from longer ranges and friendly ships might be in the area where the torpedoes were fired. Also why is that I've yet to see any official drawings or even artist impressions showing this design with torpedo tubes? As for their space, Catapults were mostly located midship by the sole role of stability and space for aircraft handling equipment. In the modern ships only Yamato (Obvious reasons of the 46cm shock) and Oyodo (very long catapult) mounted them aft but all IJN ships not mounted the torpedo tubes aft. This was a German practice and even on the Deutschlands and the Tirpitz.

4. For the 10cm turrets: The Superfirign ones might be able to moved slightly inward, but I have to think about space for the boats. By moving them more inwards only a slight increase could be achieved for the deck turrets and only in low angle fire. Their field of fire is still excellent. As for the aft pair of turrets, there are no penalties for the field of fire because of the catapults. If you look closely the aft 10cm turrets could fire at 0°elevation though this is very rare. Maybe you forgot that aircrafts were not present on ships when in battle for purposes like hull and deck damage they could cause and because in air they are much more useful examining the battle and shadowing the enemy fleet providing valuable data.

5. Catapults: While blast damage is con considerable from the 31cm turrets Catapults were sturdy equipment in my opinion so they could withstand the damage. As for choice of two catapults over one: Apart from Agano and Oyodo no modern ship built or designed carried only a single catapult. In case of Agano she was a designed with a support role in mind, a destroyer leader design for which a single catapult and a few floatplanes for scouting or commanding the squadrons are enough. In case of Oyodo she was a submarine squadron leader and no more than one long catapult could be mounted on her, though her original design was a hybrid cruiser-carrier with either diagonal or horizontal catapult:
i.imgur.com/ZbrBHjc.jpg
and the the ideas:
imgur.com/K47yz2R
imgur.com/Dd4lIyH
imgur.com/SQTye1c
imgur.com/tMBeKss
Reply
:iconaffeks:
Affeks Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2018
About the second point. I think we have a major misunderstanding here. I was talking about armor that is sloped "outwards" not inwards like Iowa or Alaska.

Of course now that I think about it I was wrong to assume that B65 would have outwards sloped belt despite what earlier designs would indicate as the closest comparison we have is Yamato, and obviously Yamato has inwards sloped belt and not outwards.

I promise you these simple ballistics principles arent something I misunderstand, just me assuming something without thinking hard.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Mar 14, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I think you got confused by the upper armoured belt which was connecting the belt with the deck and angled downwards. I think the very early warships especially the French and Russian ones around the 1900's had outward sloped armour above the waterline because of their hull form
Reply
:iconaffeks:
Affeks Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018
If you check pictures and drawings of the interwar heavy cruisers youll see that they first placed catapults further aft as seen on Myoko and Atago classes, but with Mogami they placed them further fore (away from aft main guns), and then ofc just freed up the whole aft section of the ship for aviation with Tone. Of course with Aoba you can see they placed a catapult "superfiring" the aft turret, but when they refit Furutaka they placed the catapult midships instead of right by a turret like on Aoba... Im wondering why :thinking:

Catapults need more space man, fix this pls.

I only take my time to say this because B65 might be my favourite paper ship, but hate the lack of quality illustrations of it. TZOLI YOURE MY LAST HOPE!
Reply
:iconaffeks:
Affeks Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2018
Very nice work as always, but I do have an issue with the lack of torpedoes.

As indicated by the 20 degrees sloped citadel armor (better effectiveness at close range, worse at long range), the ship was meant to be used in the night battle doctrine. Close quarters engagements where torpedoes ends up getting used A LOT. So even if this ship is a capital ship those torpedoes would have seen its use both aggressively against smaller cruisers or defensively to set up an escape from the bigger and slower North Carolina/South Dakota class Battleships. Torpedoes had a much more auxiliary role that is often forgotten. So while B65 would probably have been reduced to carrier task force escort, their inteded role was always anti-cruiser, close range, night action. I think if finished, they would have mounted the torpedoes no question. Yes, torpedoes on capital ships are often redundant, but B65 is still far from the top dogs out on the sea. 

It may seem like a good idea to not include them as the "long lances" have a reputation to have destructive consequences when detonating onboard the ship, but in truth countermeasures was already taken into consideration by WW2. New designs had torpedoes mounted far aft just under the weather deck. This a good way to explain all the empty space at the aft, no cranes, catapults or hangars ofc. The inclusion of the torpedo mounts in that area seems way to obvious to me.

Also, I dont mind the elevated superfiring 100mm/65 mounts at all, but I think if finished this way, they would have mounted the middle/superfiring turrets closer to the centerline to allow for the 4 others to have better fields of fire. This way you also negate some of the top heavyness by mounting those wing turrets closer to the centerline. I dont know how much you could move them inwards with that superstructure, but every littlebit helps. I see you already sloped the elevated deck to help with the firing arcs, but still wanted to let you know of my suggestion in case it slipped your mind.

Other than that I love the attention to detail, like the fact that you are using enclosed mounts for the 25mm that are close to the superstructure and open mounts for those on the extremities. To date I think this is the best B65 line drawing by quite a large margin. It also helps that you didnt give in and just copy paste existing Yamato line drawings and called it a day haha

The fact that you make hypothetical "when commisioned" layouts is what makes me come back, its a good use of creative freedom. Though I think leaving out the torpedoes as a whole is going to far ;D
Reply
:iconfriend711:
FRIEND711 Featured By Owner Feb 25, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
this is awesome! XDD I was looking for a new design of Japanese ships :3 this really fits the bill and it looks lovely~
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
:)
Reply
:iconfriend711:
FRIEND711 Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
Can I ask you something?
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 26, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
sure
Reply
:iconfriend711:
FRIEND711 Featured By Owner Feb 27, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
You see, I made a plastic model of my own virsion of the Japanese Light cruiser Kitakami.
 ROBOTWARS's Kitakami Light Curiser  ROBOTWARS's Kitakami Light cruiser (over view) 
 And I was wondering if you could draw it like the way you do with all your ship designs.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It seems to be overweight, and why the many different gun types?
15cm, 12,7cm destroyer turrets, 12,7cm DP-AA, 12cm AA rocket, 25mm, ASW equipment and torpedoes it's like putting everything on it for any kind of mission but not fully committed to one mission!
Reply
:iconfriend711:
FRIEND711 Featured By Owner Feb 28, 2018  Hobbyist Writer
XD well your assessment is true for the most part, not sure with the over weight part actually ^^" in the stories canon its support to be 5400ton but then agian I didn't actually weigh every new part...
 Any who the reason for the quote " it's like putting everything on it for any kind of mission but not fully committed to one mission!" are really simple. 
 You see the people captaining the ships, the fleet, the Navy etc are robots in their training simulation. They entered it in November of 1944, right after the defeat at the phillipines. 
 The kamikita was being turned into a Kaiten mothership and the robots now being the leading members of the imperial military changed their policies and had a ship mostly striped of its weapons and not really know what to do with it. 
 They needed escorting ships, especially a fast one, thus these robots who were trained to handle any sort of situation made a ship that could do basically that. 
 so I guess simply put ^^" the robots made a ship in their own vision, a ship that can do any mission. 
 Also, I added the destroyer turrets to add the fact that the Japanese didn't have new resorses and they basically used turrets from a damaged distroyer. 
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Mar 1, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I see. I don't know, maybe in the future I will do it.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontheabyssalsamurai:
TheAbyssalSamurai Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
Really nice work! Love the designs of the B-65 compare to Alaska

-sounds of triggered Alaska fans in the distance-

Shame about the lack of torpedoes in the drawing. I know they would be impractical on a ship her size but to see them would be a nice addition. Especially if the Scharn could have torps in the same impractical fashion 

Otherwise, nice work XD
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
German doctrine is different than Japanese they are more into convoy raiding and attrition tactics, IJN more into direct battle and night action. While the long lance torpedoes are devastating and long ranged try to hit a moving and turning object from 30-40km away with a weapon travelling at a speed of 65-70km/h
Reply
:icontheabyssalsamurai:
TheAbyssalSamurai Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
I mean, if the US Navy had commanders that travelled only in straight lines it could work XD

But yeah, not very likely.

But what about Battles like at Guadencanel or Savo Island where the combat was a bit closer?
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I disagree, torpedoes on capital ships are a bad idea in my opinion. They are destructive and no use in long range battles. It is a reason that all WW1 battleships and battlecruiser got theirs removed by WW2. WW2 German ship designs are not a good example of how to build a good ship. For close range battles you can use the secondary guns which are designed for this purpose to deal with destroyers and cruisers.
Reply
:icontheabyssalsamurai:
TheAbyssalSamurai Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
True, though I am not so sure about the 10cm guns ability to deal with enemy cruisers. But then again that is what the main guns are for XD

I wonder which ship would win given the same types of FSCs and equally compatent crew, damage control parties and captains: Kongo in 1942 or B-65
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well the B-65's were only ready by 1945 46 if laid down and construction commenced as planned, but B-65 is better, smaller gun calibre but overall the ship is a new design better armour, AA speed
Reply
:icontheabyssalsamurai:
TheAbyssalSamurai Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
Okay. Yeah the I could see the B-65 replacing the Kongos had they been built in time and at an era where big gun capital ships decided battles.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Actually no. If the First London Naval Treaty would not extend the battleship building holiday, Japan would had scrapped the Kongos (some 20 years old by that time) and replace them with compact but well armed and armured battleships. Both Yuzuru Hiraga and Kikuo Fujimoto produced designs for the Kongo Replacement plan:
forum.worldofwarships.eu/topic…

Note: Both were Kongo replacement designs, there were no Fuso replacement to my knowledge.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconcommandershasofrosty:
CommanderShasOFroSty Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2018  Hobbyist Artist
Absolutely gorgeous as usual!
Reply
:iconeltf177:
eltf177 Featured By Owner Feb 16, 2018
Agreed!
Reply
:iconfrankvc:
FrankvC Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2018
Man I love the B65 class.....I can’t help myself with this ship. Awesome (WiP) work xD 
Reply
:iconfrankvc:
FrankvC Featured By Owner Mar 5, 2018
Well now is truly amazing I might use it to fill a gap
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Thx
Reply
:icongrandadmiraldaizo:
GrandAdmiralDaizo Featured By Owner Feb 7, 2018
Ah. The Design B-65 Cruiser. These ships would have looked a lot like the Yamato-class battleships had they been completed. From what I recall, they would have had the same clipper bow and a similar superstructure. I could see these ships being mistaken for Yamato battleships in the middle of combat. Reminds me how the Takao-class cruisers were often mistakenly identified as battleships in combat. Imagine ships encountering a B-65 and believing it to be a Yamato. I am curious as to where you will place the torpedoes on this ship. The only drawings I have found of this design don't indicate where the torpedo tubes were to be mounted.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I'm not sure I will include the topredoes on the final design at all! I'm sure I will not include it on the upgunned version.
Weird that most sources state the torpedo armament (either as 2x4, 4x2 or in one case as underwater tubes.... ) but no drawing feature them!
Reply
:icongrandadmiraldaizo:
GrandAdmiralDaizo Featured By Owner Feb 9, 2018
Given the loss of so many Japanese records and designs near the end of the war, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the more advanced drawings of this and other designs were lost to history then.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 10, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
What would be golden to find are the designs between A-140 (Yamato) and A-127 (Tosa) and the post Yamato designs
Reply
:iconuglygosling:
uglygosling Featured By Owner Edited Feb 7, 2018
Given how the Kongos , Japan's oldest and most lightly armed but fastest capital ships were also its most active, might it have been better off building several of these ships instead of two or three Yamatos? Counterintuitive to be sure, as every navy sought to build the most powerful battleships it could, but still maybe worth a thought.
Reply
:icontzoli:
Tzoli Featured By Owner Feb 8, 2018  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well 6 was ordered 2 in the Circle 5 and 4 in the Circle 6 programme with original armament of 31cm guns which was later changed to 356mm when more accurate infos were available on the Alaskas.

And only the USN built such large cruisers as the Alaskas which was designed to fight the Deutschalnds and the hoax (from the USN's intelligence side) the IJN Chichibus (According to my friend the Chichibus were created by USN Intelligence to persuade the congress to build the Alaskas as they were reluctant to order such ships) though the only real part of the Chichibu story that Japan indeed were intend to build new ships 2 more modfiied Tones and two new heavy cruisers which became the Ibuki class and later a new cruiser class which inaccurately stated in WoW's as the erm Ishikari? (that 4x3 20cm armed one) together with the Aganos, Oyodos and AA cruiser design (Not the Japanese Atlanta that was a conversion proposal of the then under construction Oyodo hull).

So the IJN designed a capital ship to counter another cpaital ship destined to fight a never existing IJN warship and Hence the Alaska created it's own advesary to fight with! :)
Reply
:iconuglygosling:
uglygosling Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2018
Is there any information how the Type 5 40mm/60 twin might have compared to the Bofors 40mm twin used by the US Navy?
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
February 5
Image Size
2.9 MB
Resolution
4500×3600
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
2,279 (12 today)
Favourites
64 (who?)
Comments
115
Downloads
73
×